This blog is devoted to exposing the truth about supporters of the so-called Intelligent Design movement. The Intelligent Design movement is religious creationism in a poor disguise and is really just an intrusive, dishonest, religious and political agenda. The people promoting and supporting it are insane, narcissistic, hypocritical, dishonest religious-zealots who want to control the thoughts and actions of everyone on Earth.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

dmullenix points out the truth and asks some very reasonable questions:

"Moderators: I’ve been lurking on Uncommon Descent since its beginning and I’ve seen many people unceremoniously kicked off the blog for trifling offenses that are nothing compared to KF. Why do you accept this kind of repetitive slander and slagging from kairosfocus? I’m sure it hurts your blog. I suspect that many regulars here wish KF would grow up and stop the slander and I don’t doubt that many ID sympathetic people come here, read his posts, and never return. I’ve seen you discipline a few ID regulars for insults that pale in comparison to KF’s everyday output. Why do you allow him to get away with it?"

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dave, the mods don't do anything because they think exactly like kairosfocus. They don't care if less radical, ID sympathetic people or anyone else never return to UD after reading the outrageous swill there. They're only interested in keeping the extremely radical element of religious zealots. If you're not a raging religious lunatic, who hates science, Darwin, evolutionary theory, and reality, you're not needed or welcome on UD. Just look at the articles/posts by the people who run and moderate the site.

kairosfocus isn't the only one who chases people away, but he certainly contributes to it greatly. I can't think of any IDiot on UD who isn't a radical, sanctimonious jerk.

Have you noticed that kairosfocus (gordy) regularly says that he is 'correcting' someone or something "for the record"?

He thinks that he is the absolute foundation of what is correct, or not, and that he establishes "the record". He can't even imagine and won't admit that he could ever be wrong about ANYTHING! You've likely heard the phrase, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!". Well, gordy thinks he IS a god! He actually wants people to worship him, and to live by the phrase, 'Gordon E. Mullings said it, I believe it, and that settles it!'

Hey gordy, you suck, and you're NOT a god. You don't establish the "record" and you're wrong, wrong, wrong. You're certifiably insane, and you have NO credibility outside of a handful of other IDiots who are as crazy as you are!

“DM:
Pardon my frankness, but you are a proved racist and antichristian bigot who refuses any and all correction.
Your comments are therefore of zero credibility

F/N: And, my point would still sand if DM were of African ancestry, as, the point of racism is to think and act based on closed-minded racial stereotypes. DM has some serious explaining and an apology or two to carry out.”

You can generally tell when kairosfocus is losing a debate: he automatically starts slandering his opponents. For examples, click on “Search” at the top of the page and enter oil of ad into the box and see for yourself.

If you want to see where these particularly disgusting slanderous charges of racism and bigotry came from, go to the “PZ open cut quote mines” thread.

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ote-mines/

First, he hijacks the thread from quote mining to the foundations of morality in # 33.

In that post, he casually slanders non-theists by saying that for us, “terms like evil and good etc become simply tools for cynical emotional manipulation and programming of populations and individuals”, that “For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible.”, that we either have to change our arguments or we are racist, that we say “that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality]” and winds up with this gem:

“If you do not hear in this the anticipation of Alinsky’s cynical polarisation tactics, and jack-boots marching in torchlight parades and the secret police knock on your door at 4 am, it is because you are not listening closely enough.

I do not exaggerate when I say our civilisation is in mortal danger.”

Pretty every day stuff for kairosfocus, actually, and it all rests on the assumption that theists (Christian theists, to be specific) have a better grounding for their morality than non-theists, which I regard as a false belief.

I replied with, “What you want to watch out for is basing your philosophy on religion. For instance, as a black man in the Caribbean, you must be well aware of the disasterous consequences of verses like:

LEVITICUS 25:44 ‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.

That must have provided a lot of comfort to the pius and enterprising Christian slavers who purchased your ancestors and transported them across the Atlantic, to die in the cane fields without ever seeing their loved ones again.

The African tribes who used to raid rival tribes for slaves to sell to the Christians undoubtedly got their morals from their religions too. As did the Muslims who ran an equally large slaver operation in their sphere of influence.

Of course, here in the US, the slave states quickly became the Bible Belt when they discovered that the Bible explicitely authorized and approved of the chattel slavery they were practicing.

It wasn’t just the American South that felt that way, of course. A mob of Christians chased the great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison through the streets of Boston and he narrowly escaped lynching at their hands.” (Sorry for the misspellings.)

All of this is demonstrably true. The Bible does explicitly allow the type of chattel slavery that plagued the US and the Caribbean nations. KF, of course, had no comeback for this because it’s true and I provide plenty of quotes later in the thread to support my position, although I by no means exhausted the supply. But never fear, I mentioned that KF is black and you can see the results, both in the PZ thread and here.

Sorry KF, but:

1: It’s not racist to mention your race or your heritage or the Bible’s part in the kidnapping and the conversion into property of your ancestors.

2: Saying that someone should be concerned with the fate of their ancestors and wish to prevent a similar fate from overtaking other people is not thinking or acting on “closed-minded racial stereotypes.” Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s a statement that only carries weight if you’re an intelligent person with the capability of thinking for himself and acting to prevent future harm.

3. I am not an antiChristian bigot or any other kind of bigot. Dictionary.com defines “bigot” as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” Well, my mother, my late father, my sister and about 90% of the rest of my family are or were Christians. Maybe half of my best friends are Christians. I tolerate them all pretty well, even though I think they’re mistaken about their religion.

I also send my nephew $100 a month to finance his missionary activity. (I do this mainly to get my niece and nephew to China while they’re at the age where they can pick up Chinese effortlessly. I might still finance my nephew if he was childless because he’s a good man with useful skills to teach and his wife is a registered nurse and I think they’ll do more good than harm in China despite being missionaries.)

4. As a white man who doesn’t subscribe to Biblical morality, I think slavery is an offense against humanity, one small step below murder and torture. If I was a black man, I would feel the same way with the added knowledge that I would have been in danger of being enslaved myself because of my skin color barely a century and a half ago. And if I was a black man descended from slaves, I would feel all that and I’d also feel the horror of knowing that this Biblically approved sin had actually struck my ancestors and devastated their lives.

Your problem is that the Bible has too many downright evil verses in it to make it a suitable foundation for any system of morality and you can’t formulate an effective argument to the contrary.

Moderators: I’ve been lurking on Uncommon Descent since its beginning and I’ve seen many people unceremoniously kicked off the blog for trifling offenses that are nothing compared to KF. Why do you accept this kind of repetitive slander and slagging from kairosfocus? I’m sure it hurts your blog. I suspect that many regulars here wish KF would grow up and stop the slander and I don’t doubt that many ID sympathetic people come here, read his posts, and never return. I’ve seen you discipline a few ID regulars for insults that pale in comparison to KF’s everyday output. Why do you allow him to get away with it?

In that thread you'll also see the extremely sanctimonious behavior of other IDiots, who think they are the only 'moral' people. What a bunch of pompous, self-righteous windbags.

kairosfocus must be blowing a gasket right now, and I'm sure that he has contacted the mods to demand that dmullenix be banned, even though it is kairosfocus (gordon e. mullings) who is the massive bigot and slanderer.

The IDiots on UD constantly 'slander' anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Dr. Beckwith, two points. 1. Thank you for your visceral response to Dr. Torley’s article. Can we expect a substantive one?
2. With regard to “snarkiness” please remember the old aphorism about glass houses and stones.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

But if aliens made us, who made the aliens? If you can’t answer that question, then Science Says we MUST believe that those prime numbers and hyperspace blueprints are just a product of chance and necessity!

3

kairosfocus

06/25/2011

6:40 am

CD:

Good catch.

And, extending: if we are complex then the aliens “must” be more complex yet . . .

equivocation [??kw?v??ke???n]
n
1. the act or an instance of equivocating
2. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic a fallacy based on the use of the same term in different senses, esp as the middle term of a syllogism, as the badger lives in the bank, and the bank is in the High Street, so the badger lives in the High Street

–> Such fallacies, plainly, may involve simple error, not just willful deception

–> Pardon, too: I seem to be especially typo prone these past couple of days.

Uh, pardon me gordo, but you just described what you do on a daily basis, and in your case it is totally "willful" for sure. Nothing you say is ever correct, accurate, valid, sound, or logical. I cut farts that make more sense than you ever do, and they're also a lot more pleasant to listen to.

Maybe this sums up a lot of what’s wrong with modern science and science journalist. “We know that..” Not, ‘According to this popular theory..’ All the reasonable qualifiers get stripped away.

Why is it that you IDiots NEVER apply your bullshit statements to yourselves? You're the ones who constantly say you "know". You religious zombies think you "know" everything about everything! Where are YOUR "reasonable qualifiers" and where is your 'reason' at all? You just pull fairy tale shit out of your ass and claim that it's the absolute truth.

What's "wrong" is you thinking that you "know" what is "wrong". You don't know squat.

I wonder why it is only the Russians who believe we will be in contact with ETs, while SETI continues to become more defunct?

Also, I would be interested to know the Russian’s response to the literally miraculous odds that must be overcome in order for intelligent life to exist anyplace other than earth.

Kinda a strange predicament. Russian “scientists” have to believe in miracles for intelligent life to exist any other place than earth, while other, US-based scientists are reluctant to admit intelligent life is unique to earth…which also requires miraculous odds.

Could it be that one simply cannot divorce science from the miraculous in this case?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Well bantay, there's no doubt that you're divorced from reality and intelligence. Where is your evidence that it is "only the Russians who believe we will be in contact with ETs"? SETI has nothing to do with what people "believe".

Where is your evidence of the "literally miraculous odds that must be overcome in order for intelligent life to exist anyplace other than earth"? You obviously haven't kept up on the size of the universe, and the number of galaxies, solar systems, and planets in it. The "odds" are in favor of life, and "intelligent" life, not against it. No 'miracles' are necessary.

Uneducated morons like you are the type who flock to religious beliefs, because you think small, extremely small. You can't comprehend the vastness of the universe, or that life is virtually certain to be in much of it. You have your extremely limited beliefs and think that they explain everything. They don't.

What's it like to base your life and beliefs on what some primitive, rag-headed, superstitious goat fuckers conjured up?

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

"We know, on empirical warrant that choice can source FSCI, but have no empirical warrant that can stand the light of day, that chance and necessity can do so."

Actually gordo, "we" know no such thing. Unless and until you or another IDiot can coherently define, test, and demonstrate all four words in FSCI, in a scientific way, there is no such thing as FSCI. Don't forget joe-boi's famous words: "Again you cannot use that which needs explaining in the first place to do the explaining."

And since the S in FSCI stands for specified, you're going to have to show clear and convincing evidence that someone or something "specified" the alleged function, complexity, and information. In other words, you're going to have to produce the god you say did it, or the blueprints he/she/it used. Of course I'll expect to see the official seal and signature of god on those blueprints. A thumb print and photo identification of your god would be a good idea too, along with a DNA sample.

Is "choice" a new rhetorical talking point for ID? Who or what makes the "choice"? Is "source" just another way of saying 'create'?

Oh, and since your arguments are against the ToE, maybe you can show me where the ToE claims that chance and necessity can "source FSCI"? In fact, maybe you can show me where the term "FSCI" is used in the ToE at all? Maybe you can show me where Darwin used the term "FSCI", and claimed that chance and necessity can "source" it? Maybe you can show me where any scientific theory uses the term "FSCI", and that necessity and chance can "source" it? Maybe you can show me where "Darwinism" claims that chance and necessity can "source FSCI"?

You constantly accuse 'evolutionists' and 'Darwinists' of erecting strawmen and tossing out red herrings. YOU are erecting strawmen and tossing out red herrings, gordy. And you're a lying, blustering, cowardly dolt.

Again you cannot use that which needs explaining in the first place to do the explaining.

Well then joe-boi, that totally shoots ID down in flames, since NONE of the shit that is used to explain ID has been coherently explained (CSI, FSCI, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, creation, information, functional information, the alleged designer, tests for design, the explanatory filter, and all other ID terms and claims.

Can we then agree that something that isn’t science shouldn’t be taught in science class?

nullasalus

06/25/2011

11:52 pm

Great, we’re in perfect agreement.

Doubtful. There’s that track record again.

Can we then agree that something that isn’t science shouldn’t be taught in science class?

The moment it’s stated clearly that science is utterly incapable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed, that science is silent on teleology’s presence or lack in nature, and that it becomes acceptable to point out the flaws in Neo-Darwinism as well as the areas that are still a mystery or a looming question in evolutionary theory, I’ll be more concerned about that.

Hey nullashitass, science is far from done looking for answers. You have NO clue as to what it is capable of. Science is already "silent on teleology’s presence in nature". As far as the "lack" is concerned, there is no evidence of teleology or your god in nature. Your religious beliefs are not evidence, and they're not scientific.

And it's already acceptable to point out actual flaws in the ToE as well as the areas that are still a mystery. It's just not okay to try to push your religious bullshit into science. And "Neo-Darwinism" isn't a scientific theory. It's just a strawman that you conjured up.

You fucked up, dumbshit. If "science is utterly incapable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed", then WHY are you and other IDiots trying to get science to accept and use ID 'theory', which is allegedly scientific???????? You can't have it both ways! You really put your foot in your mouth. Shouldn't you be telling your fellow IDiots to stop trying to push your religious ID agenda into science, since science, according to you, isn't capable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed??

Addendum: I'll make it as simple as I can for you:

If ID 'theory' is scientific, then according to you it is utterly incapable of determining whether or not evolution is guided and therefore whether or not organisms are designed. In other words, it is a totally useless scientific endeavor or 'theory'.

If ID 'theory' is not scientific, then it is just a religious and political agenda, masquerading as a scientific endeavor or 'theory'.

"Elizabeth, when you actually make a coherent argument backed by solid empirics, then you will earn my respect that you are posting in good faith, and not before."

Who gives a fuck whether you respect them or not? And when are YOU going to make "a coherent argument backed by solid empirics"?

"do you simply ignore it because it disagrees with your preferred worldview??? And that is just one example out of countless examples of how i’ve seen you handle evidence contrary to your worldview. No Elizabeth, if you want my respect you have to earn it."

Eat shit, you arrogant religious zombie.

"What should i care what you believe the implications are to the evidence when you refuse to even address evidence in the first place???"

Why should anyone care what YOU believe, you fucking pig-headed, jesus sucking godbot?

"Elizabeth, this ain’t ‘Science according to Elizabeth’; there are to posibble explanation, and only two possible explanations. Either the universe was designed or it was not. That you would be so biased as to try to worm your preconceived conclusion into plausibility, with absolutely no empirical support, has lowered what was already my low respect for your integrity towards empirical science!!!"

Speaking of worming, a worm is vastly superior to you, phil-boi. And science doesn't care at all what you think.

"Elizabeth, I’ve seen enough of you ‘methodology of science’ to know that evidence is of very low priority, whereas your non-theistic view is of very high priority."

And your "methodology" is to be a religious maniac who believes that evidence is a belief in fairy tale bullshit.

"Elizabeth, I look at your actions and not your words. You have ignored, or superficially rationalized away, all evidence presented to you not only on this thread but practically every thread you have commented on! You HAVE NOT EVER honestly addressed the evidence as far as I can tell!!! Though you find offense that I would call you on such ‘shallowness of science’ really matters not one iota to me as far as the empirical evidence itself is concerned. I am strictly concerned with what the evidence is actually indicating to us, certainly not in any shallow philosophy of science that you, or any other person who is adverse to theism, might present!!!

As Sargent Joe Friday would say:

Just The Facts Ma’am!!"

Just shut the fuck up, you dickless pimple. You wouldn't know a fact if your life depended on it. Nobody is more shallow than you, or more pious.

"Once again why should I even care what you think when you refuse to honestly address the evidence presented to you??? Like I said before Elizabeth, THIS AIN”T ‘Science by Elizabeth’ i.e. this is not a rabbit hole world where you are free to make up the rules as you go!!"

This ain't science by bornagain77! YOU don't make the rules, phil-boi! And it's nice to know that that pisses you off no end! LMAO!!

"And where exactly have I practiced a ‘double standard’ as far as evidence is concerned??? I take very seriously any evidence that purports to compromise ID and expect the same type of respect for evidence presented against neo-Darwinism and its subordinate theories such as multiverses etc."

All you are is a double standard, in every way.

"Why should I give respect for a position without any evidence when none is given for a position with evidence???"

You're so fucking crazy and two-faced, it's not even funny. YOU are the one who has a completely delusional position with NO evidence.

Just what is natural about the natural??? I ask this because it seems obvious to me that any part of reality that one chooses to take a close look at, one is immediately drawn to the ‘supernatural’. There simply is no simple ‘natural’ explanation for any part of reality one may choose to observe. For instance, if we look at the ‘simple’, ‘natural’, atom:

The complexity of computing the actions of even a simple atom, in detail, quickly exceeds the capacity of our most advanced supercomputers of today

Wow, are you nuts or what, phil-boi? You don't know a thing about science. By the way, do you actually believe that science is all done investigating things? Even if there's something "today" that science hasn't figured out, there are a lot of tomorrows on the way. You are a stupid, religiously wacked-out moron.

"Scientific inferences and explanations are not even subjects of mathematical proof"

Then why do you and other IDiots constantly use math (shitty math that is) to support your ID claims that are allegedly scientific?

"Similarly, many aspects of the process of evaluation are not subject to such automation by a machine, hard or soft ware."

Then why do you and other IDiots constantly refer to machines, hardware, and software in support of your ID claims?

"In short they are intrinsically non-algorithmic. (That is where the idea that once you can precisely describe a process it can be automated fails. There are many, many processes that cannot be reliably so reduced. That is why there is a premise that insightful, deeply intuitive judgement is one of the key distinctives of professional grade jobs.)"

Then why do you and other IDiots regularly refer to algorithms to support your ID claims?

Whose insightful, deeply intuitive judgment is valid gordo, yours?

You're a sanctimonious bunghole.

"Theories [and more broadly explanatory models], precisely are based on abductive inferences to best explanation"

Thursday, June 23, 2011

I can easily explain the decrease in entropy produced by playing Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini by pointing out that there is an equivalent, balancing increase in entropy — the heat produced by the vibration of the piano strings.

Any fool with any sense of basic logic can therefore figure out that in an open system, with heat energy available to do useful work, it is inevitable that someone will compose and perform Rachmaninoff’s Rhapsody.

How can this not be obvious?

------------------------------------------------------------

Actually gildo, how can it not be obvious that you are a braggadocios, deranged asshole?

The first fatal flaw in Professor Tkacz's critique of ID is his outrageous personification of Nature as "she." He isn't just waxing poetic here; he really does regard Nature as One Big Agent. What's more, Nature is One Big Autonomous Agent, according to Professor Tkacz. While Nature is totally dependent on God for her being, Nature's operations are entirely her own. God never "interferes" with the operations of Nature; He is "responsible for" them only insofar as He is the Creator of Nature. God alone can cause things to exist, and the universe would be nothing without Him. Hence Creation is God's domain. Change, however, is entirely Nature's domain. Nature alone produces all the changes in the world, without God needing to "intervene."

To clear up any remaining misunderstandings, I'd like to respond to five quick questions I imagine my readers will want to ask.

Question 1: "You mean, God does half the work and the natural agent does the other half?"

Answer: No. God and the natural agent operate on different levels, and they each do 100% of the work on their respective levels. God acts as a Transcendent cause, while the natural agent is a created cause. God is not merely the first in a long chain of causes; rather, God is above the entire chain, actively co-operating with each and every member as it produces its effect.

Question 2: "But if God and the natural agent both cause the same effect, isn't this unnecessary duplication?"

Answer: No. God and the natural agent contribute to the change they produce in different ways. Let's say that God and natural agent A (e.g. a flame) co-operate to make agent B (e.g. a piece of metal) do something new (e.g. glow). In this case, God causes agent B (the piece of metal) to do something, while natural agent A causes it to do this (glow). Agent A is responsible for the specificity of the effect (the glowing), while God acts as a universal cause, responsible for the occurrence of the effect (the glowing). Both contributions are essential; and each is nothing without the other.

Question 3: "So there are two actions resulting in the same effect, then - God's transcendent action and the creature's action at the natural level?"

Answer: No. God and the natural agent co-produce their effect by a single action, because actions are individuated by their effects, rather than their causes. As Professor Freddoso has pointed out, this is an axiom of Scholastic theology.

Question 4: "So if the creature does something bad or harmful, then isn't God is a 'partner in crime' with the creature? Doesn't this make Him responsible for evil?"

Answer: No. As we saw, God is a universal cause. When God co-operates with a natural agent (e.g. the flames of a forest fire) that causes a harmful effect (e.g. the death of an animal, which is a natural evil), we have to distinguish between the general features of the effect (e.g. the fact that fires burn combustible bodies in their path) and the particular details (e.g. the fact that the fire burned this unlucky animal). As a universal cause, and as the Author of Nature, God is morally responsible for the former, but not the latter. Of course, some people might still try to find fault with God for making flames which are liable to burn animals in the first place, or for making some animals too slow to run away from approaching forest fires. But that's a problem for "mere conservationists" like Professor Tkacz, just as much as it is for concurrentists like Aquinas. And the Scholastic answer to this problem would be that: (a) the tendency of flames to burn flesh is not evil per se; (b) because natural processes are inherently liable to fail on the odd occasion, some individual animals will necessarily have defects (e.g. lameness), which may cost them their lives in a forest fire; and (c) asking God to guarantee that animals should always be out of harm's way whenever a forest fire rages, is tantamount to asking Him to act as a Cosmic Nanny. For God to prevent all these harms would constitute an excessive restriction on the "creatureliness" of creatures: it would "cramp their style" too much.

Question 5: "If the creature is a moral agent, who does something bad or harmful, then why isn't God responsible for the evil done by that agent?"

Answer: When God co-operates with a moral agent, who has a will of his/her own, God is in no way responsible for the moral evil of that agent's act, as this defect from the agent. For instance, when Brutus stabbed Caesar, God, in co-operating with Brutus, intended that his hands should work as they normally would when picking up things (be they spoons, gifts or daggers), and that the dagger held by Brutus should remain in his hand as it normally would when held firmly. What God did not intend was that Brutus should stab Julius Caesar with this dagger. In the words of Aquinas, "Forasmuch as the first cause has more influence in the effect than the second cause, whatever there is of perfection in the effect is to be referred chiefly to the first cause: while all defects must be referred to the second cause which does not act as efficaciously as the first cause" (Quaestiones Disputatae De Potentia Dei (Disputed Questions Relating to the Power of God) Q. III art. VII, Reply to Objection 15). Hence God is in no way the Author of evil.

Concurrentists believe that God's agency, when producing a natural effect, is immediate in another sense, as well: God uses the natural agents He co-operates with as instruments of His will, in order to accomplish the effect He intends. In these cases, God is primarily responsible for the effect as its Author, and the natural agent plays a subsidiary role. Because the effect brought about is intended as an end by God, who planned it to happen, then we can legitimately speak of it as being immediately brought about by God. I have already discussed this sense of immediacy at considerable length, in the long version of "Smoking Gun" number five, in Part One of my response to Professor Tkacz. I showed there that Aquinas explicitly taught that God uses the natural agents He co-operates with as instruments of His will, and that when He does so, His agency is immediate.

"But why does it matter whether God co-operates with each and every natural agent, when it acts?" I hear you ask. Here's why. If you're a "mere conservationist" like Professor Tkacz, then you'll believe that God could only stop a natural agent from behaving as it normally does by "intervening in" or "interfering with" Nature. That sounds messy. Miracles are problematic too, for the same reason: it seems repugnant that God should have to interfere with His own handiwork, in order to bring about a desired effect. No wonder "mere conservationists" want to keep miracles as rare as possible.

A "mere conservationist" can believe in Intelligent Design, but only the extreme front-loading variety, whereby God programs the specifications for complex biological structures into the initial conditions of the Big Bang - or perhaps creates a very peculiar set of highly specific, information-rich laws - utterly unlike the general, information-poor laws we know - which lead inexorably to the emergence and subsequent evolution of life when the right sequence of events unfolds. Either way, though, it's very fiddly work for the Deity, so I'm not surprised that few "mere conservationists" entertain this option seriously.

But if you're a concurrentist, then you'll have no problem believing in miracles or Intelligent Design. Miracles are elegantly simple for God to accomplish, on a concurrentist view. God never has to "go against" a natural agent when He works a miracle, even if it's a miracle that's "contrary to nature": all He has to do is refuse to co-operate with the agent in the way that He normally does. Take the Biblical account of Shadrach surviving unharmed in Daniel's fiery furnace (Daniel 3:26-27). In order to stop the flames from burning Shadrach, all God had to do was "turn off the taps" on His side, by refraining from co-operating with the flame when it came into contact with Shadrach's body. The flames still retained their natural disposition to burn (as shown by the fact that they incinerated Nebuchadnezzar's soldiers), but they couldn't do anything to Shadrach without God's co-operation.

I should add that concurrentism accords perfectly well with a philosophically rigorous, scientifically adequate account of the laws of nature.

Intelligent Design isn't a problem either, if you're a concurrentist. God already has His finger in every pie, for no natural agent can do anything without Him. And if God chooses to supplement His normal co-operation with natural agents with some special effects that are produced by Him alone, that's His business. On a concurrentist view, there's absolutely no reason why He shouldn't produce some special effects in Nature on His own, if He wants to. He's not interfering with Nature, because He's already in the thick of things: He works with each and every natural agent, whenever it acts.

This argument ties in with another reason why concurrentism should be especially attractive to religious believers: it offers us a maximally active Deity, one Who causes every effect, whether acting alone or acting in co-operation with creatures. By contrast, "mere conservationism" keeps God on a tight leash: although He keeps every kind of creature in being, He does not co-operate with any creature when it acts; nor does He "intervene in nature" (to use Professor Tkacz's dreadful phrase), for that would be interfering with Nature's autonomy. At the same time, concurrentism upholds the view that creatures are maximally active: since they participate in the agency of God their Creator, who is Pure Act, it is only fitting that they should be as active as created beings can possibly be.

Concurrentism thus stands mid-way between two extreme views of how God interacts with the world: a view that mistakenly minimizes God's agency, in order to maximize not only the agency of creatures, but also their autonomy ("mere conservationism"), and another bizarre view called occasionalism, which maximizes God's agency at the expense of creatures. According to this view, creatures don't really act at all. Even though they appear to act in certain situations, it's really God who's acting on all those occasions when they happen to be around. Thus a flame doesn't really burn; God just goes into "burn mode" when something which God has deemed "combustible" gets sufficiently close to a flame. St. Thomas considered this view to be absurd and unscientific, as we would have no way of knowing things' natures if they could not act:

And thus, all the knowledge of natural science is taken away from us, for the demonstrations in it are chiefly derived from the effect. (Summa Contra Gentiles Book III, chapter 69, paragraph 18.)

Additionally, St. Thomas argued that "if no creature has any active role in the production of any effect, much is detracted from the perfection of the creature," and that "this position detracts from the divine power" as well, because it entails that God is unable to communicate the perfection of agency to creatures (Summa Contra Gentiles Book III, chapter 69, paragraph 15). Hence occasionalism limits both God and creatures.

So I would like to counter Professor Tkacz's Principle of the Autonomy of Nature with a principle, which I call the Principle of Maximal Activity: we should ascribe the maximum possible degree of agency to God and creatures alike. Or as Professor Alfred Freddoso puts it in his essay, God's General Concurrence With Secondary Causes: Why Conservation Alone Is Not Enough: "in general, theistic naturalists should be antecedently disposed to countenance in nature the maximal degree of divine activity compatible with the thesis that there is genuine secondary causation." Concurrentism is the only account of Divine Agency which satisfies these criteria, as it asserts that God co-operates with every natural agent, making Him an immediate cause of each effect, while creatures retain their natural agency. Concurrentism thus maximizes the activity of both God and creatures.

I presume that Professor Tkacz is familiar with concurrentism. His example of a hippopotamus giving birth sounds suspiciously similar to the example of the birth of a baby armadillo, discussed by Professor Alfred Freddoso, of Notre Dame University in his essay, God's General Concurrence with Secondary Causes: Pitfalls and Prospects. I note also that at the end of his talk, Tkacz acknowledges his indebtedness to Professor William Carroll, who (in his footnotes) highly commends essays written by Professor Alfred Freddoso, defending Suarez's version of concurrentism. I therefore find it puzzling that Professor Tkacz, in his hippopotamus example, makes no attempt to be fair to concurrentists, but instead sets up a "straw man" in an effort to make his "mere conservationism" sound more reasonable to his audience. It would have been much more helpful if he had presented concurrentism in a more balanced manner.

I might add in passing that it is difficult to see how a "mere conservationist" of Professor Tkacz's sort could still call God the Prime Mover. First Cause? Yes, certainly - First Cause of creatures' being. But how could a God who doesn't cause any changes in Nature, but merely maintains it in being, be properly called a Mover at all? (I should add in all fairness that not all "mere conservationists" are as extreme in their views as Professor Tkacz. Some, like the 14th-century medieval philosopher Durandus, regarded God as a remote cause of change, as well as an immediate cause of creatures' being. "Mere conservationists" like Durandus could legitimately call God a Prime Mover.)

What I'm suggesting here is that maybe, even God can't make a predictable universe that can generate life in all its diversity. Perhaps the demand that He do so contains a hidden contradiction - and since God cannot do what is logically contradictory, He can hardly be faulted for not being able to make life in the way that Professor Tkacz would like Him to. Like it or not, if we want a universe with life - especially eukaryotic life-forms like us - then we need a manipulating, "hands-on" Deity. And if that strikes some theistic evolutionists as messy, then I can only say to them: get used to it. We live in the real world, and it's God's world, not the world of your Laplacean intellectual fantasies.

The beauty of Intelligent Design, in my opinion, is that it complements Aquinas' arguments, by appealing to empirical phenomena which by their very nature can only be produced by an intelligent being. Thus ID provides a via manifestor for modern skeptics, and helps us reason our way towards the existence of an Intelligent Designer of life and the cosmos, because it argues from specific effects which are peculiar to intelligent beings, and which intrinsically require concepts in order to produce them. It also helps us understand better what it means to say that God is intelligent.

The first fatal flaw in Professor Tkacz's critique of ID is his outrageous personification of Nature as "she." He isn't just waxing poetic here; he really does regard Nature as One Big Agent. What's more, Nature is One Big Autonomous Agent, according to Professor Tkacz. While Nature is totally dependent on God for her being, Nature's operations are entirely her own. God never "interferes" with the operations of Nature; He is "responsible for" them only insofar as He is the Creator of Nature. God alone can cause things to exist, and the universe would be nothing without Him. Hence Creation is God's domain. Change, however, is entirely Nature's domain. Nature alone produces all the changes in the world, without God needing to "intervene."

If you’re a neo-Darwinian evolutionist, then you have to trace the origin of all animals back to single-celled creatures, which in turn are said to have arisen (somehow) from inanimate matter. Aquinas argued, however, that the extreme specificity of the conditions required to form “perfect animals,” due to their high level of complexity, precludes the possibility of their having originated from non-living matter. More precisely: God alone could have produced the forms of the various kinds of higher animals (or “perfect animals,” as Aquinas called them), when they first appeared, as they were too complex and required too many conditions to be satisfied for their formation to have occurred by natural processes acting on non-living matter.

Today, however, we know that animals have not always existed: they had a beginning in time.

In my online refutation of Professor Tkacz, I showed that Aquinas taught that some physical changes are beyond the power of nature to bring about. These changes cannot have a naturalistic explanation. They must therefore be produced by the power of God alone. Examples include the raising of a dead body, the production of the first human body from inanimate matter and the production of the first animals, according to their various kinds. I also showed that Aquinas held that events occurring outside the order of nature manifest God’s agency in the best possible way, for they manifest God’s power and voluntary agency in a way that is evident to everyone.

the reader might like to check out our Darwin’s Dilemma Web page, which shows that the appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record in the Cambrian period cannot be explained as a product of chance and/or necessity: only an Intelligent Agent could have produced them. It does not matter whether you believe that He did it through front-loading (early in the history of life) or by manipulating the genes of simple animals at a later point in geological time; the point is that one way or another, a massive amount of functional information was required to produce these creatures. Since intelligence is the only known source of functional information, Dr. Donald Johnson concludes in his books Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity (see here for the less technical version) and Programming of Life that the probability of unintelligent natural processes producing life or complex animals is exactly zero.

Right now, I’m working on a lengthy essay which deals with what Aquinas would have thought about creationism, ID and the theistic version of neo-Darwinian evolution, were he alive today. It will be posted online in a week or two. It contains quite a few surprises. For instance: St. Thomas believed on scientific grounds that certain kinds of living things could not have arisen naturally from non-living matter. I also argue that St. Thomas could not have accepted any version of neo-Darwinian evolution, for theological reasons. Stay tuned.
2. I believe that Aquinas’ Fifth Way is a valid argument, but it’s a metaphysical one. Most modern-day people don’t trust metaphysical arguments, as an avenue to truth. Even if you could argue them into a corner (and I’ve tried many times), they’d simply say that there must be something wrong with one of the premises.
3. However, modern-day people DO trust maths and the sciences. I believe we have to engage them on their own ground, and take the fight to that arena. That means we have to keep ourselves abreast of the latest scientific developments and continually sharpen our arguments by exposing them to the harshest criticism: that of intelligent skeptics.
4. At the same time, we should keep our metaphysical arguments ready to deploy as well, as conversion to theism occurs on many intellectual levels, and we have to engage all of them. With most skeptics, I’d bring out Aquinas’ Fifth Way after convincing them that there was a good scientific case for the universe’s being designed (the fine-tuning argument) and for life being designed (Signature in the Cell). By that stage, they’d be open to metaphysical arguments and a new world-view, but not before.

Absolutely speaking, you are right to say that “The metaphysical argument is the strong argument,” because it cuts to the very heart of reality. However, when arguing with skeptics, one has to use arguments which they can readily grasp. That is the advantage of cosmological fine-tuning and biological ID arguments: the key concepts are relatively easy for moderns to grasp. The only question is whether the science and mathematics are correct.
I am not at all worried about whether the gaps in Meyer’s argument will be overturned. There are only three possible ways of generating the complex specified information in DNA: chance, necessity and intelligent agency. The first two are mathematically incapable of generating enough CSI to make even a protein, let alone a cell, in the lifetime of the observable universe.

I am well aware of the distinction between abiogenesis and evolution, thank you. And no, I don’t claim that Aquinas’s views would be unaffected by modern science, were he alive today. In my forthcoming paper, I spell out at considerable length precisely how much Aquinas would be prepared to change his views, given his fundamental theological principles. I argue that while he’d accept an old earth and possibly common descent, there’s no way he’d accept neo-Darwinian evolution. And while he accepted abiogenesis, he’d laugh it off as silly nonsense were he alive today.

--------------------------------------------------------------

There's the Cambrian explosion argument again. vince apparently hasn't heard that the "explosion" took millions of years.

The Brutus/Caesar bullshit is fucking hilarious!

And of course vince thinks he knows exactly what 'god' and aquinas think or would think today or did think or did do or would do or whatever. What a pompous, delusional windbag. So typical of an IDiot!

Notice his problem with nature being called "she". He is married to a Japanese woman, who are said to be subservient. He has no problem with "God" being called "He". He's also a catholic, and catholic men treat women like inferior slaves. Profound misogyny comes to mind.

"A lump of inanimate matter lacks intelligence altogether. Since the angel possesses (in some fashion) a perfection which belongs to God and a lump of inanimate matter does not, the angel is more like God than the lump of matter."

"Since an angel is more like God than a lump of matter, someone who comes to believe that the universe was created by an angel is therefore closer to classical theism than a materialist."

"The charge that Intelligent Design theory is tied to an anthropomorphic conception of God has been made before, and repeatedly refuted."

"(a) An intelligent agent – for example, a human being."

"I hope Professor Feser answered (a). Since he is a devout Catholic, he accepts that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God."

"Intelligent Design theory claims that life, and indeed the cosmos, can only be explained as the work of an intelligent agent – i.e. something in category (a)."

"I hope to convince some of them that we in the Intelligent Design movement have thought long and hard about our philosophical position, that we are capable of answering the best objections that can be raised against it."

"On the contrary, Professor: what would be truly "inconsistent with the Catholic intellectual tradition" is a refusal to even examine newly discovered physical effects in Nature, which may require a supernatural cause in order to explain them. Whatever their merits, Aquinas would say that these effects at least warrant honest investigation."

"Aquinas taught that some physical changes are beyond the power of nature to bring about. These changes cannot have a naturalistic explanation. They must therefore be produced by the power of God alone. Examples include the raising of a dead body, the production of the first human body from inanimate matter and the production of the first animals, according to their various kinds. (However, Aquinas also mistakenly believed that some of the lower animals were capable of being generated spontaneously, without "seed," from dead or decaying matter, and that these animals need not have been produced by God, in the beginning.)"

"So what ID proponents like myself are claiming is that the original production of biological forms exhibiting the property of specified complexity must, of necessity, proceed from the Creator alone. Is that precise enough for you, Professor Tkacz?"

"What "God-of-the-gaps"-style ID proponents like myself are saying, then, is that complex biological forms, whose specified complexity exceeds a certain threshold, were produced immediately by God. Production of a new form in pre-existing matter would be described as a change by Aquinas, rather than an act of creation, and ID proponents are perfectly happy to refer to it as a change."

"ID proponents are interested in identifying changes in Nature which are unambiguously the work of an Intelligent Agent, in order to overturn the reigning scientific paradigm, that mindless forces are sufficient to explain the world around us. That's why Intelligent Design proponents are interested in "discontinuities" in Nature, among other things. But we do not hold that these changes are the way in which God creates things. We're quite happy to use Aquinas' word, "produce," and many ID proponents would add that patterns in Nature exhibiting a certain level of specified complexity were "produced immediately by God," as St. Thomas puts it."

"God created Nature"

"I am not a creationist."

"The world is an expression of God's intellect as well as God's will."

"Nature is an expression of God's will"

"everything in Nature contributes to the perfection of the cosmos as a whole"

"God knows what effects He wants to bring about in the natural world."

"God is the cause of knowledge in human beings"

"The value of ID is that it supplements the argument from contingency, which gets us to a Necessary Being, but not an Intelligent Creator."

"If we bear all these similarities and differences in mind between God and human designers, then the assertion made by various ID proponents, that some forms in Nature were originally produced immediately by God alone, in a manner similar to the way in which a work of art is produced by an artist, will no longer sound anthropomorphic."

"What ID proponents like myself hold is that God, in creating the universe with its laws of nature, its natural constants and its initial conditions, did not thereby specify every event that was to follow, in the long history of the universe. In particular, God did not specify the subsequent emergence of structures exhibiting specified complexity in the Big Bang. That's because He never intended to - and for a very good reason, which we'll discuss below. (The curious reader can find the explanation in "Fatal Flaw Number Four".) To ensure the emergence of these structures, God timelessly decided to supplement His initial specification of the cosmos with some additional acts, involving the immediate production of biological forms exhibiting specified complexity, without the use of any secondary causes. From our (time-bound) perspective, then, God produced these forms after the Big Bang, but from God's perspective, all of these acts were part of His timeless plan for creation."

"It would be better to say that from time to time, new and distinct forms of life instantiating the property of specified complexity have appeared on Earth, and that these forms were produced immediately by God, Who is outside time."

"Putting it another way: many Intelligent Design theorists (including myself) would maintain that at certain points in time, Nature is manipulated by God. Indeed, we'd go so far as to say that Nature is made to be manipulated. However, this does not entail that God manipulates Nature at certain points in time. God is outside time; when He manipulates Nature, He does so timelessly."

"There are good mathematical reasons for believing that even God couldn't design a universe that can produce life in all its diversity without any need for "manipulation""

"Anyway, what I wanted to say is that Darwinism is a spiritually poisonous theory, which is totally incompatible with Thomism - a marriage made in Hell. Whatever you think of Intelligent Design, Darwinism is a much greater enemy. There's no way it can be sanitized or Catholicized, as I demonstrate in Parts Two, Three and Four of my five-part reply to Professor Tkacz. It makes little sense to me for believers to attack each other at a time when children are being indoctrinated with atheism."

"Evolution cannot be preordained."

"God's manipulation of Nature is required to account for the vast quantities of CSI we find in living things."

"If someone wants to construct a philosophical argument for why the biological world points to a Intelligent Creator, I don't think the atheists could care less, for the simple reason that most of them don't consider philosophical argumentation a valid source of knowledge. Only science counts in their book."

"And even if we can't tell a sequence containing FCSI from a random sequence just by looking, I say: so what? If we learn only in hindsight that a sequence has FCSI, that's still a useful discovery, and we can still quantify the information."

"I find no evidence to suggest anything more than that Professor Dembski is a political animal - and aren't we all? - who has a theological agenda of combating atheism, on scientific grounds. Big deal."

"At times, Feser’s hyper-orthodoxy borders on the comical: he publicly maintains (I kid you not) that it is a sin for parents to tell their children that Santa Claus is real. Hmmm. Here’s what the Catholic Theologian Fr. John Hardon, S. J., has to say about Santa Claus in his book, “The Catholic Catechism” (Doubleday, 1975, paperback edition, page 402): “Circumstances are an integral part of human speech; such circumstances are the time, place, tone of voice, and the persons addressed. Thus what may be verbally contrary to fact, like telling children about Santa Claus, is not lying.” Whom should we believe? I think I’d take the word of a highly respected theologian over that of a philosopher, on a point of Catholic doctrine. Wouldn’t you?"

------------------------------------------------------------

Well vincent, you call yourself a "philosopher", so why should anyone take your word "on a point of Catholic doctrine" or anything else?

vincent j. torley, a catholic creobot hypocrite and liar thinks he's a real smart guy. He thinks he 'outed' MathGrrl as being Patrick May. Frankly, I don't care if she/he is Patrick May or not. torley is just showing his stupidity and massive bias, and like the other IDiots on UD he is just trying to divert attention away from the cold, hard fact that IDiots can't and won't define or apply their claims about CSI or any other ID bullshit.

torley posted a second bullshit article where he says he's sorry for 'outing' MathGrrl (even though there's no proof that he actually did, but he sure thinks he did) but of course most or all of the IDiots on UD automatically believe he did bust her and are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn her. kairosfocus, the incessant whiner who vehemently complains about outing behavior when it pertains to HIM, is driving the bandwagon.

On another site, vjtorley said:

"If you want to accuse someone of fraud, you should first make sure you can convict them if it, in court." (sic) (so much for his proof reading skills)

"Let me add that casting baseless aspersions on people’s characters by calling them “fraudulent” and accusing them of “selling out” does little to enhance your credibility."

JAPANESE: I have lived in Japan for over eight years and my wife is Japanese. I am accustomed to
PROFICIENCY: speaking Japanese at home, and I can read several hundred kanji.

VISA: I have a permanent visa, which allows me to reside in Japan for as long as I wish. My visa was granted on 21 August 2006. My visa number is P??????.

QUALIFICATIONS: A. Academic Qualifications
(1) Bachelor of Science, completed in 1981, at the Australian National University, Canberra. Major: Pure Mathematics. Other subjects studied: Physics (2 years), Chemistry (2 years), Geology (1 year) and Science German (1 year).
(2) Bachelor of Arts, completed in 1986, at the Australian National University, Canberra. Majors: Philosophy and Computing Science.
(3) Bachelor of Economics, completed in 1987, at the Australian National University, Canberra. Majors: Economics and Accounting. Other subjects studied: Statistics (2 years).
(4) Master of Arts in Philosophy, completed in 1994, at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Thesis topic: Laws of Nature (Scientific Laws). Grade: 2A.
(5) Ph.D. in philosophy, which I received in August 2007. Thesis topic: The Anatomy of a Minimal Mind. My thesis can be viewed online at HYPERLINK "http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.html" http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.html .

Graduate Diploma in Secondary Education, completed on 26 October 2001 at the University of Canberra. Subjects: Mathematics and ESL (English as a Second Language). I am a qualified high school teacher in these subjects.

WORK HISTORY: Currently, I have six part-time teaching jobs in Japan:
I work as a part-time foreign teacher for Interac (Maxceed) on Mondays and Thursdays, from 8:40 a.m. to 12:40 p.m., at Yamakita high school, which is located on the Gotemba line.
I work as a part-time foreign teacher for Interac (Maxceed) on Tuesdays, from 10:50 a.m. to 3:20 p.m., at Odawara Sogo Business high school.
I work as a part-time foreign teacher for Interac (Maxceed) on Fridays, from 8:40 a.m. to 12:40 p.m., at Ashigara high school, which is located in Daiyuzan, about 10 kilometres from Odawara.
I teach Business English at the Komatsu Electronics factory in Hiratsuka, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 pm on Mondays and Thursdays.
I teach one-to-one English lessons for GABA on Saturdays, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:25 p.m.
I work for Seikatsu Kobo, a NOVA franchise, on Sundays, from 1:20 to 5:20 p.m.; on Tuesday evenings, from 4 to 9 p.m.; and on Fridays, from 3: 10 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. I teach conversational English to students from all walks of life.

May 2008 to April 2009: I taught business English lessons for OTC on Wednesday nights (5:30-7:30 p.m.) at the Mitsubishi Electric factory in Ofuna, and on Thursday nights (6:30-8:30 p.m.) at the Nissan Shatai factory in Hiratsuka.

April 2007 to March 2009; I taught English Grammar and Oral Communication four days a week at Yamate Gakuin, a private high school located in Kounandai, near Yokohama. I taught these classes by myself for two years.

November 2007 to January 31, 2008: I taught Business English at the Chiyoda Gravure printing factory in Osaki, from 6 to 8 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I obtained this position through ELEC.

January 2002 to October 25, 2007: For nearly six years, I worked for NOVA and taught conversational English at its Chigasaki branch from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday to Friday, and on Saturdays, from 1 p.m. to 9 p.m., until the sudden closure of all NOVA schools on October 26 forced me out of this job, leading me to look for evening work in Tokyo (see (4) above).

April 2002 to March 2007: I worked as a part-time foreign teacher at Atsugi Nishi High School, teaching English for Oral Communication, as well as grammar and reading classes. I also taught English Writing at Oiso High School from April 2006 to March 2007, and English for Oral Communication at Hadano Minamigaoka High School from April 2006 to March 2007. My reason for leaving these jobs was simply that I needed a daytime job that paid more, in order to support my wife and three-year-old son. Subsequently, I started teaching at Yamate Gakuin.

April 2004 to February 2006: I taught English for Oral Communication for two years on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturday mornings at Shounan Gakuen, a private junior high school in Kugenuma-kaigan. (I taught at public schools on the remaining weekdays.)

May 2002 to January 2004: I taught English for Communication as well as Business English at Waseda University, Japan, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, during day-time hours.

March to December 2001: While I was studying for my Diploma of Education at the University of Canberra, Australia, I tutored two secondary students in mathematics and science twice a week, and taught English once a week with the Adult Migrant English Service (AMES), on a voluntary basis, to a migrant from Croatia.

March 1999 to February 2001: I was an English teacher at a NOVA school in Hiratsuka, Japan. I taught students of all ages (6 to 80) and occupations, in group classes, kids’ classes (for students under 12), conversational voice classes, business classes and travel classes, before returning to Australia to train as a high school teacher.

1995 to 1999: I worked in Melbourne, Australia, as an analyst/programmer for the international insurance company Fortis Australia.

1989 to 1994: I was employed by the insurance company National Mutual (now Axa Australia) as a computer programmer. I worked in Melbourne, Australia. I played a key role in supporting and maintaining an equities trading system called MAPS, which had a daily trading cash flow of $150 million.

1986 to 1988: While completing my B.A. and B.Ec. degrees, I did some temporary work (accounting tasks and data entry) with various public and private organizations.

1982 to 1986: I worked in the public service, in Canberra, Australia, for the Department of Territories, as a Clerical/Administrative Class 4. Principal duties included preparation of monthly management reports and work with payrolls and stock inventories.

1978: I worked as a shop assistant in Canberra, Australia, for a disposals store company, Sydney Disposals Pty. Ltd. I left to do full-time study for a B.Sc. degree, which I completed at the end of 1981.

COURSES/
WORKSHOPS: In 1998, I completed the Cambridge/RSA Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults, which allowed me to teach English to students of all ages, around the world.

In 2001, I completed the Adult Migrant English Service (AMES) course, which allows me to teach English to migrants in Australia.

While working for NOVA in Japan, I completed courses in teaching Business English, TOEIC, TOEFL, and children's classes.

In 2006, I completed a course on the Standard Speaking Test (widely used in Japan) with ALC.

COMMUNITY
INTERESTS / WORK: I have donated blood to the Red Cross about 35 times in Australia and Japan.
I have also taught English to migrants in Canberra, Australia, while working as a volunteer for the Adult Migrant English Service (AMES).

SKILLS/ EXPERIENCE:
I have seven years of experience teaching English at Japanese high schools, and over nine years of experience as an ESL teacher in Japan.
I have 10 years of experience as a computer programmer and analyst/programmer.
I have tutored students privately in secondary mathematics, science and economics.
I have extensive experience in proof-reading. I have proof-read a Masters thesis on IT and I am currently proof-reading the English translation of a book on optics written by a best-selling Japanese author.
I have also had experience in promotional writing and have written book reviews for various magazines.

PERSONAL INTERESTS:
Reading. I’m a passionate reader, and I enjoy books on almost any subject - history, biography, science, philosophy, religion, art and literature.
Travelling. I’ve been to more than 30 countries. I am interested in meeting new people, learning new languages and encountering other cultures.
Art. I like going to museums and to the theatre.
Keeping fit. I enjoy running and walking.
Recreational activities - dining out and going to the movies.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I'm impressed. An English teacher who thinks he knows all about 'god', the universe, evolution, science, history, morals, and everything else. What a surprise that he would be a pompous catholic creobot IDiot. Not.

The IDiot "Eocene" (on UD) is just another creobot moron who never looks at a mirror. Here is a post of his, and below the long dashed line is my much more accurate rendition:

Eocene

06/23/2011

4:18 pm

vjtorley said:

‘Upright Biped wrote: “This debate is not about personalities, it’s about the evidence.”

“I completely agree.”
===

Yep, totally agree here as well. If they actually had cold hard facts and evidence to bring to the discussion they would have posted them at the beginning of the debate, as opposed to the tired old definition shell-gaming, intellect verse intellect gaming, etc, etc, etc. Then totally lie and insist they are not doing this.

Numerous posters come to mind here. You know, the ones who must be dragging themselves away from their all important scientific research to combat those they otherwise consider beneath their condescending self importance to dignify with a response ??? Anyone else notice that most of the leadership[names aren't necessary, you know who they are] on the evo side of things and their ideological troll wannabes have never really actually spent any real world time out in the field to arrive at the conclusions they pimp ??? Calling on the authority of Atheistic sites like ‘TalkOrigins.org, TalkRational.org, etc are a dead give away. Also, you never here of any practical application for findings without them plagerizing “Intelligent Design” tools and attaching evolutionary signage on them and hijacking these as their own.

Other than that , same ol’YAWN!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Yep, totally agree here as well. If IDiots actually had cold hard facts and evidence to bring to the discussion they would have posted them at the beginning of the debate, as opposed to the tired old definition shell-gaming, intellect versus intellect gaming, etc., etc., etc. And of course they totally lie and insist that they are not doing this.

Numerous IDiots come to mind here. You know, the ones who must be dragging themselves away from their all important scientific research to combat those they otherwise consider beneath their condescending self importance to dignify with a rational, relevant response. Anyone else notice that all of the so-called leadership [names aren't necessary, you know who they are] on the ID side of things and their ideological trolls and god-wannabes have never really actually spent any real world time out in the field to arrive at the conclusions they pimp?

Calling on the alleged authority of delusional creobots, looney philosophers, the bible, and theistic sites like answers in genesis, evolution news and views, uncommon descent, etc., is a dead give away. Also, you never hear of any practical application for their non-existent findings, and they plagiarize scientific tools and research and attach ID/theistic signage on them and hijack them as their own.

"Intelligent design maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural processes. Since ID relies on evidence rather than on scripture or religious doctrines, it is not creationism or a form of religion.

ID restricts itself to a simple question: does the evidence point to design in nature?

ID does not deny the reality of variation and natural selection; it just denies that those phenomena can accomplish all that Darwinists claim they can accomplish.

ID does not maintain that all species were created in their present form; indeed, some ID advocates have no quarrel with the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor. ID challenges only the sufficiency of unguided natural processes and the Darwinian claim that design in living things is an illusion rather than a reality."

-------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT evidence???????????????????????????????????????????

ID totally relies on scripture or religious doctrines, and it IS creationism or a form of religion.

Challenging the sufficiency of unguided natural processes and the Darwinian claim blah blah blah, does NOT support or prove ID claims. You have to acquire, show, define, test, and demonstrate positive evidence.

dense o'leary (News) on UD demonstrates her profound stupidity in her article about the Iceman's last meal.

She says:

"Ice man’s last meal: Deer, apparently:

Less than 2 hours before he hiked his last steps in the Tyrolean Alps 5000 years ago, Ötzi the Iceman fueled up on a last meal of ibex meat. – Heather Pringle, “The Iceman’s Last Meal”( ScienceNOW, 20 June 2011)

What if it had been wild goat instead? That’s the frustrating problem with studies of human evolution. Before the literate period, it’s hard to find out what you really want to know."

----------------------------------------------------------

Hey dense, an ibex IS a wild GOAT, NOT a deer. According to the studies, the "last" meal was ibex meat, not deer meat.

For a self proclaimed journalist, you are more illiterate than a bag of ibex shit.

By the way, are you such a frigid pontificating bitch because no man wants you? Your twat is undoubtedly more shriveled and mummified than the skin on the Iceman.

Monday, June 20, 2011

"Actually, Neil, science is critically dependent on Theism being true, and furthermore science cannot be sustained by atheism or any other philosophy. Indeed a very strong argument can be made that Christian Theism, in particular, was, and is, necessary for the sustained development of modern science. This is not a matter of my personal taste but is of historical fact!"

And then he goes on to post a bunch of links that refer to early scientists who were or may have been religious. But, notice that he says "is" necessary for the sustained development of modern science.

Hey phil (bornagain77), no reasonable or "very strong" argument can be made for your delusional religious ramblings about science. Your "personal taste", which is actually a terminal case of religious insanity, means nothing when it comes to science, and your religious insanity is all you've got, no matter what you say to the contrary. You don't know squat about science or reality or evolution or anything else that matters to anyone who has a clue. And science is NOT critically dependent on theism being true. Theism is a nothing but a nuisance to science.

You always post a ton of links to what other crazed religious people say or do or preach or sing or claim or speculate or blather on about. Have you EVER had an ORIGINAL THOUGHT?? You are an insecure, paranoid, cowardly, dependent, self-brainwashed, uneducated, ignorant, arrogant, slobbering parasite.

A new thread on uncommon descent (link below) promises to be a clear demonstration of the transparent hypocrisy and dishonesty of the IDiots there. Already some of the two-faced liars have shown their real selves, yet again. The person with the user name "lastyearon" correctly pointed out the hypocrisy of o'leary, who often goes by "News" just to make it look like she hasn't completely taken over UD. Her hypocrisy and that of her fellow IDiots is so big that I'm surprised it all fits within the universe.

The IDiots on UD and elsewhere have absolutely no awareness of their own hypocrisy, lying, arrogance, sanctimony, pomposity, self-righteousness, blustering, ignorance, shallowness, dogma, craziness, and insulting behavior.

gildo (gil dodgen) complains about the "BioLogos crowd":

"This is outright slander, and despicable, immoral misrepresentation. Great Christian testimony, BioLogos crowd. I’m sure this will lay up a few more treasures in heaven for you, except for the fact that you obviously don’t believe in such notions, being the confused, effectively functional atheists that you are."

Well, gildo-the-pious-godbot, you forgot real quickly that you called the "typical Darwinist" "a complete ignoramus" just the other day and included some other derogatory remarks, like you always do. So much for YOUR "Christian testimony" and YOUR "treasures in heaven", you phony two faced buttchunk! And you constantly, along with your fellow IDiots, insult atheists. What's the matter gildo, are you jealous of atheists and their realistic thinking? Are you pissed because you need a religious crutch and they don't? You poor thing you. Maybe your teddy bear will give you a hug and make everything better.

THAT'S the main reason I started this blog and give them shit. They DESERVE it. They run amok on UD and elsewhere and think they're immune to the truth about themselves. Anyone reading this blog and wondering if I'm pointing out the truth can go see for themselves what the IDiots at UD, and elsewhere, are trying to get away with.

A couple of things to keep in mind when reading that thread:

joseph (joe g) constantly insults "Darwinists", especially on his blog, even though he says: "Materialistic/ reductionist agenda and it isn’t hidden. Just sayin’….". For him to make it sound like he doesn't attack "Darwinists" is just one of the MANY lies he spews.

Notice all the other insults directed at BioLogos, "Darwinists", Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, atheists, and even "Christian Darwinists", and the thread is just getting started! Doesn't the bible say some things about judging and condemning other people? Those IDiots on UD are so arrogant and self-righteous that they insult and condemn OTHER christians, just because those other christians aren't as delusional as they are! If you're not a full blown, completely indoctrinated, bible thumping, proselytizing, evangelizing, 100% creationist ID pusher, you're the DEVIL and you don't fit in with IDiots!

If it were up to IDiots, they would exterminate everyone on Earth who disagrees with them in the slightest way. They're as crazy and arrogant as muslim terrorists.

Also keep in mind that wackos like the ones at UD are trying very hard to force their insane bullshit into schools, government, laws, and other venues, whether you like it or not. They want to control the world, and even what you think.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

– Charles Darwin

The problem is, Darwinists need to show that such a thing can and does happen rather than shifting the burden upon someone else to show that it could not possibly happen.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, mung-the-blustering-IDiot, you religious morons have to show POSITIVE evidence that supports YOUR claims for ID, if you want science to take you seriously. Science IS working on figuring out evolution and many other things, which is more than can be said for ID and its IDiot supporters. You IDiots aren't working on any POSITIVE evidence for ID because there isn't any. Religious claims aren't scientific and can't be investigated scientifically.

Saying 'god-did-it' and that it couldn't possibly have happened without god isn't positive evidence for ID or anything else, and you delusional IDiots are the ones trying to shift the burden of evidence or proof. Your religious beliefs are not the null when it comes to science. YOU are not the one who chooses the null, and neither are your IDiot buddies.

"Next, do you understand how serious it is to insistently misrepresent another person or people?"

"And, what that looks like when it is sustained in the teeth of correction on the merits?"

"Do you see why I am pointing to a problem of insistent ad hominem laced strawman caricature on your part?"

""Onlookers: DM is of course tossing out red herring after red herring led away to a forest of strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems awaiting some firebrand rhetoric to set ablaze, bitterly polarising and poisoning the atmoshpere."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hey gordo, YOU and your poisonous IDiot buddies are the ones doing that shit, over and over and over again! You are a broken record, endlessly repeating the same old verbal sewage.

gordy also says:

"On the first, pardon some frank words: you would be better advised to study before speaking."

"Onlookers, see what has been happening over and over again for months?"

----------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, gordy-the-shit-spewing-boi, we "onlookers" see exactly what's been happening over and over again for YEARS at UD and anywhere else a religious wacko opens his/her mouth. You and all the other brain-dead IDiots would be better advised to study before speaking, and you should just shut the fuck up! You need mental help, NOW!! You're crazier than Charles Manson.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

....without being spoon-fed Gerber baby food? And isn't it interesting that gildo can call a "typical Darwinist" "a complete ignoramus" and other derogatory terms and UD allows it but UD regularly blocks and bans people who are civil, but just don't necessarily accept ID? So much for UD welcoming civil, honest discussion/debate. So much for 'Christian' values, non-judgment, and brotherly love. The only thing they "welcome" at UD is total agreement with their constant Darwin bashing and blind, unquestioning adherence to their hypocritical religious insanity.

gildo (gil dodgen) is the pompous, religious IDiot who loves to brag about his alleged work in the aerospace industry and obviously thinks of himself as the greatest engineer who ever lived! He also thinks that whatever engineering he has allegedly done is directly comparable to biological entities.

Posts like the one from gildo (below) are one of the reasons I created this blog. IDiots dish it out but won't let anyone respond accordingly on UD. Here, I can say whatever I want, and the IDiots on UD could come here if they only had the balls to leave their protected echo-chamber website called uncommon descent. They won't do that though, because they would have to face comments and challenges that they cannot block or ban.

The cowardice and dishonesty of IDiots are easily apparent. Their imaginary god obviously didn't give them any courage. They're just a bunch of whiny little crybabies, who are hiding, lying, and proselytizing on UD.

Oh, and gildo? You don't have an answer for anything that matters to anyone but delusional, braggadocios, religious morons like you. And the "bizarre disconnect" is between YOU IDIOTS and reality, logic, and any notion of basic scientific reasoning. YOU'RE the ones who live in a fantasy world and base your thoughts and beliefs on silly, ancient fairy tales that have NO scientific merit or foundation whatsoever. When are you going to grow up and face reality?

And by the way gildo, the ToE and abiogenesis are two different areas of study in science. Of course you'd know that if you had a brain and knew anything about science, you fucking dolt.

The problem with Darwinists is that they never consider the astronomically complex engineering that would be required to produce such a phenomenon.

This is perfectly understandable, of course, because the typical Darwinist is a complete ignoramus concerning even the most trivial engineering principles.

The Darwinist waves his hands in the air, proclaims that spontaneous generation turned dirt or “the primordial soup” into a highly complex information-processing system in the first living cell, and then asserts that random errors introduced into this highly complex information-processing system turned that cell into Mozart in 10^17 seconds with hopelessly inadequate probabilistic resources.

This is fantasy. Silliness. A bizarre disconnect from reality, logic, and any notion of basic scientific reasoning.

How do these arguably intelligent people live with such nonsensical anti-reason? I know why, because I was once one of them. I’ll give you the answer in a future post.